Ubuntu LTS or CentOS as a production server

[<?php?>]

I develop mostly intranet applications and sometimes, not often, I have to deploy a LAMP server at the client’s premises. The clients want to get their money’s worth and in most deployments require additional features, like file sharing, to be enabled for them to save documents, data, etc.

I’ve used both CentOS and Ubuntu at deployments and found both versions very easy to install, administer and maintain. Security seems to be near perfect on both variants.

I had to setup a NAS once and had some issues with CentOS and the MB’s Ethernet (got it working later on) and therefore rolled out Ubuntu which supported the device without patching.

Which version would you recommend me rolling out in the field and why?

Regards.

 

[kingrob]

Both are good choices.

 

[dotnerd]

I have a Ubuntu 10.04 box running with 2vCPU and 4gb ram doing over 300 000 secure transactions a day.. sure its at 90% utilization all the time but its rock solid.

I also have over 40 CentOS boxes running as webservers, db boxes or virtualization nodes.

As long as you know what you are doing all will be fine, regardless of which flavor you choose

 

[<?php?>]

I have a Ubuntu 10.04 box running with 2vCPU and 4gb ram doing over 300 000 secure transactions a day.. sure its at 90% utilization all the time but its rock solid.

I also have over 40 CentOS boxes running as webservers, db boxes or virtualization nodes.

As long as you know what you are doing all will be fine, regardless of which flavor you choose

If you could benchmark both Ubuntu and CentOS, which variant would outperform the other?

I’ve also heard that BSD systems are likely to outperform Linux based systems, is this true?

 

[kingrob]

I think it's all about the support available.

Ubuntu has a massive community out there, so you're in good hands when looking for answers. You can also take out a support contract with Canonical.

CentOS community is also strong, but if you want real peace of mind, put RHEL on one of your servers and get a support contract with Redhat, then all your CentOS boxes are covered as well.

Now sure who looks after BSD these days.

 

[hof]

If you could benchmark both Ubuntu and CentOS, which variant would outperform the other?

I’ve also heard that BSD systems are likely to outperform Linux based systems, is this true?

Are you serious?

Benchmark in terms of what? This is some serious micro-optimization. bind, mmap, fork? Either way, your OS will not be the bottleneck for your performance.

Performance will vary from kernel to kernel, but only 'significantly' (I use the term very loosely) in major releases. If your Ubuntu and CentOS distributions run on the same kernel there will be no difference in performance. All variants of 2.6 should perform similarly.

 

[<?php?>]

All variants of 2.6 should perform similarly.

Thanks.

So it actually comes down to “after sales” support and Administrator certification training.

Is RedHat’s support and training better than Canononical’s, since Web Hosting providers, well the ones (several) I’ve worked with, provides only CentOS based hosting, or have you encountered several Ubuntu only Web Hosting Providers.

 

[kingrob]

Thanks.

So it actually comes down to “after sales” support and Administrator certification training.

Is RedHat’s support and training better than Canononical’s, since Web Hosting providers, well the ones (several) I’ve worked with, provides only CentOS based hosting, or have you encountered several Ubuntu only Web Hosting Providers.

RedHat Training & Certification is the industry standard for Enterprise Linux & recognized by everyone.

 

[hof]

Thanks.

So it actually comes down to “after sales” support and Administrator certification training.

Is RedHat’s support and training better than Canononical’s, since Web Hosting providers, well the ones (several) I’ve worked with, provides only CentOS based hosting, or have you encountered several Ubuntu only Web Hosting Providers.

When it comes to training and enterprise support, Redhat would probably be your best bet. The RHCE certification has become an industry standard, and many hosts insist that all their engineers are RHCE's (e.g. Rackspace). RHCE's should be equally proficient in RedHat and CentOS. Ubuntu has a rather small share of the server market, as Debian is usually preffered due to it's stability. Ubuntu's repositories are more up to date but with the (possible) price of lower security/reliability.

 

[Rocket-Boy]

I personally prefer CentOS but im starting to warm up to Ubuntu server a little.

 

[<?php?>]

The RHCE certification has become an industry standard, and many hosts insist that all their engineers are RHCE's (e.g. Rackspace). RHCE's should be equally proficient in RedHat and CentOS.

Well it’s settled then. If industry leaders like Rackspace and the Industry Recognised Certification are built around RHEL, it has obviously proved itself to be the better production server OS.

Thanks again.

 

[Rocket-Boy]

CentOS is unbranded RHEL so its a nice safe bet to use.

 

[Cadavre777]

I’ve also heard that BSD systems are likely to outperform Linux based systems, is this true?

Now that would be opening a big can of worms if someone were to answer that question. IHMO linux has always felt sluggish and cumbersome to get anything done in comparision to FreeBSD and NetBSD. But that could be attributed to feeling comfortable with the designs.

 

[avert]

im hoping ubuntu server becomes the rhel of debian, with third party support from sun,oracle,intersystems,etc,etc like rh has at the moment.

personally i cant stand rpm based distro's and would only use them if debian wasn't officially supported.

i mean really, its been 10 years since i last used red hat. even with yum, its still a half arsed package management system.

with regards to doing a lamp stack and filesharing, maybe a print server. go with what makes your life easier.